MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President began today with his
intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. Earlier this
morning he welcomed to the White House the World Champion California
Angels. And then, later this afternoon, the President will leave for a
major ceremony at the Department of State, where he will sign into law
the emergency AIDS legislation to help the suffering people of Africa,
as well as the Caribbean.

And tomorrow the President looks forward to signing into law the
economic jobs and growth package that the Congress just passed. The
President will be signing into law this week several pieces of major
legislation as part of a season of accomplishment that the Congress has
passed so much legislation the President is pleased to sign.

Other items I want to bring to your attention: Yesterday President
Bush called to express condolences over the loss of Spanish soldiers on
the military transport that crashed in Turkey. He spoke with President
Aznar. They discussed Iraq and the Middle East. He also congratulated
President Aznar on the local election successes that his party
enjoyed. He sent congratulations to Mrs. Aznar, who won a seat on the
Madrid City Council.

The President, also yesterday, spoke with Canadian Prime Minister
Chretien. The two leaders discussed the upcoming G8 meeting,
U.S.-Canada relations and other international issues of concern. Both
said they look forward to seeing each other in Evian. They also
touched on Afghanistan, the situation in the Democratic Republic of
Congo, and on the global economy.

One schedule announcement for you: The President will welcome
Portuguese Prime Minister Barroso to the White House on June 6,2003,
for a meeting and working lunch. Portugal has stood firm from the
first hour of America's -- among America's closest allies in the war
against terror, and the effort to bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
And of course, they hosted that important meeting that took place in
the Azores.

And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.

Q Ari, on this summit that may or may not happen next week,
everybody seems to be talking about it that it's going to happen, and,
understandably, there's logistics to be worked out and other kind of
negotiations, but this is a little bit unusual. Why is it that the
White House is being so circumspect before making the decision to go
ahead and do this and make it official?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think at this point there are just some
formalities as the President continues to review the exact manner in
which he will put his wheel to the shoulder, as I've said many times
before, to help bring the parties together in bringing peace to the
Middle East. So there still are -- I would put it this way, it's
under active consideration, a possibility of meetings. And I'd just
leave it at that for today.

Q The very fact that he's doing it is significant, given his
views about direct involvement from the President when this has been
done before. So if he decides to go ahead with this summit, is it
because there will be something to announce at that summit? Or what
other specific action does he believe will result from him sitting down
directly to this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, after a very sustained period of killing in
the Middle East, we are -- now arrived at what can possibly be a very
hopeful moment. And the President wants to do everything in his power
to make it the most hopeful moment possible.

And this will continue to involve the President, and in the
conversations that he's had with Prime Minister Sharon, with Abu Mazen,
the meetings that the President has had, plus a tremendous amount of
behind-the-scenes work that the President and others have done
involving the Arab neighbors in the region. We have seen moments in
the Middle East come and go before, when people thought they could
achieve peace. This President is committed to seeing if, perhaps, this
time peace can be achieved.

Q Ari, before the summit was to take place, there was supposed
to be a meeting tomorrow between Abu Mazen and Sharon, and that has now
been cancelled, apparently by the Palestinians. Is this another bump
in the road?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, I don't speak for either party
that was scheduled to have a bilateral meeting. But I would not be
surprised if a bilateral meeting still took place in the near future.

Q Is there a chance there will be a summit both in Jordan and
in Egypt?

MR. FLEISCHER: There are a number of possibilities that the
President is taking a look at. And, again, I have nothing to say yet
in the formal sense of it. But there are a number of possibilities the
President is looking at.

Q These will all be part of the larger G8 trip, wouldn't it?

MR. FLEISCHER: If there is something, it would certainly follow
the G8. It would not be prior to the G8, and it would be some time
shortly after the G8 if it were to happen.

Q Ari, the Iranian Foreign Minister has said that his country
has arrested a number of suspected al Qaeda members. What's the White
House's response to Iran's pursuit of these terrorists?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we are pressing the Iranians to end their
support for terror, including the harboring of al Qaeda terrorists.
Our policy on Iran remains that the future of Iran is to be determined
by the Iranian people. And we continue to press Iran to end its
nuclear weapons program. We continue to press Iran to cease its
harboring of terrorists. And we will continue to work that message to
the Iranians through multiple channels -- through our channels, as
well as through international channels.

Q Are you satisfied with the steps that they claim to have
taken?

MR. FLEISCHER: The steps that the Iranians claim to have taken in
terms of capturing al Qaeda are insufficient. It is important that
Iran live up to its commitments and obligations not to harbor
terrorists.

Q All of this talk recently about supporting the
democratically-elected factions of the Iranian government, leaning on
them to round up al Qaeda, has created an atmosphere here in Washington
at least of thoughts of some sort of looming confrontation with Iran.
Senators Hagel and Biden were out on the weekend urging this
administration to take a go-slow approach. And can you disabuse us of
any kind of notion that, if not war, there is some sort of aggressive
posture that the White House is taking toward Iran that could lead to a
confrontation?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, surely I hope nobody is suggesting that our
policy should be to wink at Iran and to say to Iran that it's okay to
harbor terrorists. This President will not do that. This President
has a stated, consistent message around the world, and that includes
the nation of Iran. But it's a diplomatic course that the President is
pursuing, and it's a course that trusts the Iranian people at its core,
that the future of Iran will be determined by the people of Iran. And
that's a diplomatic approach.

Q And also wrapped up in that is this idea of its alleged
pursuit of nuclear weapons, as well. How does that factor --

MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly we hope that nobody would want to look
the other day if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. After all, this
is why the IAEA, the international agency has been to Iran, has visited
sites, and has expressed its concerns about Iran's involvement in
pursuing a full nuclear fuel cycle. We continue to have concerns, and
those concerns have been expressed to the Iranians.

Q Ari, you said we've arrived at a hopeful moment in the Middle
East. Why? What factors and forces have brought this opportunity?

MR. FLEISCHER: From the President's point of view, this can be a
hopeful moment in the Middle East because, one, the Palestinians have a
new leader who is dedicated to reform, Prime Minister Sharon has
accepted the road map and the two-state solution. And this President,
working with Arab nations, working with Israel and working with the
Palestinians, is determined to see if this can be the right moment to
get the parties to move forward, to implement the road map as they've
accepted the road map.

Q Is part of the goal here to boost Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen,
to show that he is the main guy on the Palestinian side, and get the
other Arab states to do more to endorse his leadership?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think from the President's point of view, the
main goal is to boost the peace process. That's what the President is
endeavoring to do, and that means all parties to the peace process.
Each individual entity or nation will be responsible for finding their
own way to support that road map. The United States cannot do it for
them, but the United States can be there to help the various parties
come together, to work them along through good diplomacy.

And that's what you've seen. You've seen a lot of behind-
the-scenes work, you've seen a lot of overt work, you've seen a lot of
meetings. And that's what it works to working this issue in the Middle
East.

Q But how does this differ, this President's activity differ
from President Clinton's efforts in this regard, which -- not to
bring up a sore spot -- what you once said he tried to shoot the
moon, President Clinton did, and it didn't quite work?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the biggest difference has historically
been the United States' role to help the parties come together. The
biggest difference is Yasser Arafat is not party to the current
discussions. And it was Yasser Arafat who did the most to destroy the
prospects of an agreement being reached when it was very close to being
reached. That's the principal difference.

Q Ari, you've expressed some concern about Iran not allowing
the IAEA full access. Obviously, they've allowed more than the North
Koreans have at this point. In the administration's estimate, which
country, North Korea or Iran, is closer to developing nuclear weapons,
and how does that affect the timetable of diplomacy in each case?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I've seen no estimates that I can compare one
nation to the other. They both are sources of deep concern. And the
timetable remains, in the situation with North Korea, to continue to
work the multilateral diplomacy, which is having some success; and in
Iran, similar diplomatic approach. But both are approaches that are
based on reality, that are based on telling the facts, telling the
truth to the American people, and letting these nations know that the
world expects them to come into international compliance.

Q You said you've seen no estimates. The public CIA estimate
on North Korea is that it probably has two weapons and may or may not
be reprocessing now. The public CIA estimate on Iran is that they are
not yet in possession. Is that correct -- reprocessing?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Iran has admitted to the IAEA that they are
pursuing a full nuclear fuel cycle. They maintain that it's for
peaceful purposes, to produce fuel for civil nuclear reactors. But the
United States rejects that argument as a cover story. Our strong
position is that Iran is preparing, instead, to produce fissile
materials for nuclear weapons. That is what we see.

Q And one last follow-up. What is your assessment now, since
the President will be meeting President Putin, of how much continuing
aid Russia is offering to Iran in the completion of the nuclear fuel
cycle program?

MR. FLEISCHER: This has been a matter of some dispute between the
United States and Russia, and we have urged the Russians to take a look
at this, and they are continuing to take a look at it. I think it
remains an issue where the President is hopeful that we can effect a
change in policy by Russia, but it does remain a matter of some
dispute.

Q You urged them to do that on our last trip to St. Petersburg,
last year. What progress has been made on that issue since the last
St. Petersburg trip?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let's await and see what happens at this trip
and see if we have anything definitive to report.

Q Ari, a question on Burma. I hope President Bush and you have
seen the article yesterday in The Washington Post, and also reports of
the last 13 years that the regime, the military dictatorship in Burma,
they have killed democracy 13 years ago and still they are doing
today. And those people, 15 million or more Burmese cannot even
demonstrate in Burma like the Iranians demonstrating outside of the
White House today. And it seems from the press reports that the
military dictatorship in Burma, they are enjoying this administration's
support. What is President Bush going to do to bring democracy? We
are really talking about bringing democracy around the globe, so what
about Burma and how long these people will continue to suffer under
this military dictatorship?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you've seen from the President a very
consistent message, no matter where it is in the world, about the
future of democracy and his faith in the people around the world, no
matter what their background, no matter where they are, to be able to
make determinations for themselves about the types of government that
they seek. And that's a clear, consistent message universally.

Q The administration argued that Iraq posed a danger to the
United States, a threat because of its weapons of mass destruction and
the possibility of having it get into terrorists' hands. When it comes
to Iran, can you give us a sense, an assessment of whether or not it's
considered to be a threat to the United States because of its nuclear
weapons program and the extent of al Qaeda, the size and scope, in that
country?

MR. FLEISCHER: We continue to have concerns about two issues
inside Iran, and I will reiterate, from the President's point of view,
that it's important for Iran not to harbor terrorists. It's a message
that the President has repeatedly sent, as well as the message that the
world community has sent to Iran, about not developing nuclear
weapons. At all times, we are always concerned everywhere in the world
about nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists, or weapons
of mass destruction ending up in the hands of terrorists. That is a
worry in several places, and this is why this President is pursuing
these policies and speaking directly as he has.

Q Can you give us a sense of the size and scope of al Qaeda
inside that country, or even the threat level compared to what Iraq
was, say, before the war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, you have different histories
involving those nations. Iraq, of course, had a militaristic history
in which they had repeatedly attacked their neighbors. And of course,
Iran and Iraq did fight a very lengthy war. In terms of the numbers
inside Iran, there's nothing concrete that I can report on that. There
is intelligence, and it's been talked about. Secretary Rumsfeld eluded
to it very specifically last week in terms of saying he knows that
there's al Qaeda, we know that there's al Qaeda there. And that
remains a concern.

Q What does the administration -- what has the administration
been told, or what has been conveyed to the U.S. by Iran about the
arrest of al Qaeda member? And do you have any sense from them about
how senior these people are, either from contacts with Iran, or from
your own information?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've seen the press reports. I don't know if
there's been -- of course, we don't have direct diplomatic relations
with Iran, so I couldn't tell you if there's been any other
back-channel communications with us. But I can tell you that our
assessment is of their actions that they are insufficient.

Q And insufficient in what way? What is it that you want the
Iranians to do now? Turn those people over to the countries they came
from?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's also a concern about whether or not
top level al Qaeda that are in Iran are being arrested.

Q And you're not -- obviously, you have some skepticism that
Iran is doing what it claims to be doing, which is arresting all the al
Qaeda it knows about.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a accurate way to put it, as well.

Q And does the U.S. have a sense that Iran is actively
harboring these people? Or did they just happen to be in Iran and that
the government has not done all it could to find them, and arrest them,
and expel them?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think Iran is not exactly the type of
nation that people just happen to end up in. People seem to want to
have a desire to go there, and our concern is that the desire can be
matched by a government that allows them to be there. And that's why
this is a message that is being pressed as directly as it is.

Q What would you say to the stories over the weekend that the
U.S. is considering destabilizing Iran?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I said to you that the future of Iran
will be decided by the Iranian people.

Q Well, with any help from the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, our message is that the future of Iran will
be decided by the Iranian people. We continue to get the message
across about the importance of Iran acting as a nation that assumes its
proper place in the world, that does not seek to harbor terrorists and
that does its part in making certain that terrorists are not able to
use, or al Qaeda is not able to use, Iran as any type of place to have
operations out of or just even to collect or be.

Now, earlier Jim was asking about how people may end up there. We
don't rule out the possibility that a nation with as long a border that
some may cross, but we also are concerned about the fact that some may
be able to find some level of safety there.

Q Iran seems to be meeting all of the conditions that the
President laid out as an enemy state under the terrorism -- in the
terrorism category. You all say they have al Qaeda operatives within,
they're pursuing weapons of mass destruction, there's the potential of
the deadly marriage that Cheney and the President warned so much of in
the pre-war days with Iraq. What's different?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've cited before the different militaristic
history of Iraq from Iran. And we have -- the President is pursuing
the diplomatic policies as I said, and as you've seen in other places
around the world. That is the policy.

Q Does it stay diplomatic, or is it -- have you left on the
table the fact that you all may proceed in a fashion more like Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's a diplomatic pursuit that is being --
it's diplomacy that is being pursued. And, again, the future of Iran
will be determined by the Iranian people. And I think the Iranian
people have a great yearning for a government that is representative of
their concerns.

Q Ari, American soldiers are being killed in Iraq, or being
wounded, and many Iraqis are protesting that they're not getting the
service from the Americans under the occupation or administration
that's now being run by Mr. Bremer. Is the White House satisfied with
the pace or the way things are being handled in Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, any violence is always a matter that
the United States takes seriously. And the recent killings of our
servicemen there is always a worrisome event. And it's a reminder that
Iraq remains a place of great danger, that there are bad neighborhoods
in place to place inside Iraq. But there also are developing
neighborhoods and better neighborhoods and neighborhoods where there is
increasing power, increasing civil life, increasing civilian control
over the infrastructure. You're seeing that in the port city of Umm
Qasar. And there continues to be the goals of the United States to
develop that as rapidly as is doable, and that's what's happening in an
uneven pattern around the country of Iraq.

Q The President of Syria, Mr. Assad, has said that he doubts
the existence of al Qaeda, or has doubts about the existence of al
Qaeda --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's not a credible statement.

Q Ari, is it accurate to say that the administration is
undergoing a major shift in its policy toward Iran and is about to
embark on a new course that hasn't been embarked upon before?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, that would be inaccurate. Our policy on Iran
is unchanged. I would refer you back to the statement that the
President issued on July 12th. That is the statement that talked about
the future of the Iranian people being determined -- the future of
Iran being determined by the Iranian people. That was perceived at
that time, and I think it's fair to say it still remains, a bold
statement, a statement of support for the people of Iran. And that is
the cornerstone of the President's policies.

Q What is the cause of the increased concern within the White
House about Iran lately?

MR. FLEISCHER: I wouldn't say there's an increased amount of
concern in the White House. I'd just say there's an increased volume
of questions. But the policy is unchanged.

Q Ari, it's been almost a month since the President declared an
end to major combat operations in Iraq and we still haven't found any
weapons of mass destruction. So will you say at this point that there
is a very real possibility that we're just not going to find them?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think you saw what General Myers said on the
Sunday shows about the importance of being patience in this. It is
just a month and nothing has changed our confidence that they will be
found.

Q You indicated that having senior Baath Party officials in our
custody would help lead us to those weapons. But it's been a while now
that we've had them in our custody. So is the strategy shifting to now
us relying on just random searches? Or do we still have --

MR. FLEISCHER: The strategy has always been multi-fold. It
involves discussions with -- I think you've really heard medium
officials is probably where we'll get most of the information --
medium-level officials, the review of the numerous documents that are
being found, the conversations that are taking place with numerous
officials, all of the above is what goes into what we hope will be the
day when, as a result of a scrap of information or a tip that is
received, we are able to follow up. And, of course, we have already
had the successes in finding the bio -- the trucks, the bio-trucks
that have no other use than for the production of biological weapons.

Q -- on the tax cut signing tomorrow, Ari. The President
repeatedly makes reference to the downturn in the stock market before
he took office, and things were in fairly dire straits when he took
office and the recession that followed and the other events. It has
been asserted that with his signature tomorrow, the President really
takes ownership of the economy, for better or for worse, politically.
What do you think of that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's one of the silliest notions I've
ever heard, because the President took ownership of the economy on
January 20th, 2001, when he became the President. I remember people
saying after the President signed the tax relief act in 2001 that the
President now has ownership of the economy. I just don't understand
that argument, that it only begins now.

This President has always faced facts, always dealt with the
reality, always dealt with the fact that, indeed, he did inherent a
recession. But it is his job as President to do something about it.
And that's what he's been doing, both in 2001 and in 2003. And that's
the purpose of his presidency, when it comes to the domestic security
and economic security.

Q Politically, the Democrats make much of the number of jobs
lost since the President took office. Is the President willing to
stand or fall on the number of jobs that have been created when he goes
to the voters next time?

MR. FLEISCHER: Mark, I think you have to ask the public on what
criteria will they make their determinations about the President. And
I think that you will find from the public, they will make that as a
very sophisticated judgment, as the public typically does. They take
into account a variety of factors. They take into account that there
was a recession, there was September 11th, an attack on our country.
And I think they will make their determinations based on the
President's response to it.

Q Is that -- the reason I ask it that way is because you know
that the projection that you folks have for the package that originally
was presented to Congress was that it would create a million jobs.
There still would be a net loss, even if that were the case, even if
the President's own projections for the effect of his tax cut came --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll all learn. We will all learn, as the
future unfolds, what the net and gross job creation number is. This is
projected to create more than 1 million jobs, and we'll see what
aggregate effect that has on the economy. But, again, I think those
are the judgments the American people look forward to making, and we
look forward to them making them.

Q On the tax cut, does the President consider the bill that
he's going to sign tomorrow, does he consider it a component of
fundamental reform? Or does he consider it a major step of the
existing system?

MR. FLEISCHER: You mean tax reform in terms of simplification?

Q Right.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question there is simplification
elements to this. I think when you take a look at the acceleration of
some of the tax cuts that were previously scheduled to be phased in
that are now on the books, that's helpful for people. I think when you
take a look at the capital gains rate structure, which, in reality, was
a 20-18 structure for upper-income people and a 10-8 structure for
lower-income people, it's now simplified to a universal 15-5. That's a
simplification -- if you understood any of those numbers that I just
said.

Q A move to a consumption tax, or closer to a consumption tax,
does he consider that --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think you'd have to ask economists that.

Q And, secondly, on the French Foreign Minister said that
President Bush decided to go to war in Iraq in January, despite his
public pledges that he hadn't made up his mind until late March. What
does the President think about this declaration?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think you watched it all play out all before
you. I think the President was prepared to use force from the day he
went to the United Nations in September and said that the United
Nations needs to enforce its resolutions. I think it was clear then
that the President in his words -- you can examine them -- talked
about the need, as he said, for the U.N. to enforce its resolutions, or
the United States will. But the President did not make up his mind
until when he indicated to you that he did.

Q So he, and senior administration officials who said that this
is accurate are lying?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's just a matter of different people get
different perspectives depending on where they sit.

Q Ari, our policy toward Iran has always been fairly consistent
in terms of trying to effect a change in the leadership there in that
more moderate element have the upper hand. And we've been fairly quiet
the last few months with regard to Iran. Why this new attention? Is
it simply because of the Saudi incident? Or is there an element of
Iran trying to de-stabilize Iraq and what we're trying to do in Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I really don't know that it's my place to say
what creates a increased interest. My job is to answer the questions
that

you raise about these matters. I think it is fair to say that the
recent attack on Saudi Arabia has certainly put this on people's radar
screen, and legitimately so.

Q And what about evidence of possibly meddling in Iraq and
stirring up the Shiites there against U.S. forces?

MR. FLEISCHER: That, too, is a concern about Iraqi -- Iranian
interference in Iraqi affairs. That is a concern, as well.

Q -- to a more vigorous U.S. pursuit of boosting moderates at
the expense of the Islamics?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's no question that Iranian
society is going through some very serious internal debates about the
future that the Iranian people want for themselves. Iran is one of the
youngest nations on Earth in terms of the percentage of its population
that is under 30 years old. And it is represented by a leadership that
many Iranians do not see as meeting the needs, their human rights,
their basic wants. And these are issues that the Iranian people will
sort out.

Q Ari, back on Iran on the claim the Iranians make that this is
a civilian nuclear program. You said earlier the United States rejects
that as a cover story. Why?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you look at what the IAEA has indicated
when they were there, the Iranian admission to the IAEA that they are
pursuing a full nuclear fuel cycle, while we have not yet received the
final report from the IAEA, we do, indeed, have concerns about a
country that is awash in gas and oil producing nuclear energy when they
don't need nuclear energy for their electric grid, when they don't need
nuclear energy to produce energy in their country. They have
sufficient energy from fossil fuel sources, from gas and from oil. So
that raises a concern.

And so we will look forward to the final conclusions that they have
reached. And I remind you that the IAEA would not even have been in
position to find these facilities had they not been led to these
facilities from Iraqi -- Iranian opposition groups.

Q And second, if I may, the State Department made a
determination earlier this month that China was continuing to provide
Iran with substantial assistance in its missiles development program.
Is the President planning to meet with Hu Jintao during this trip when
Hu is on the sides of the G8, or in St. Petersburg? And will he
discuss this with him?

MR. FLEISCHER: Two points: One, as you know, the State Department
did take action, as required by law, in regard to that. And two, we
will have briefings -- I believe tomorrow you will receive a briefing
about the trip. And I think we might be in a position to give you some
of the meetings tomorrow on who the President will be meeting with. So
we'll have that tomorrow.

Q Ari, the Canadian government, this morning, introduced
legislation that will decriminalize marijuana. What is the
administration's position? Should Canada expect any repercussions,
like border delays? And did President Bush speak about this with Prime
Minister Chretien?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't believe that was a topic that came up in
their conversation. It certainly was not in the notes that were given
to me. And that's a position the President has not supported here.

Q Ari, the upcoming trip of the President, he's dealing with a
lot of international issues. But one issue in particular, how the
United States is helping Africa. When is the President going to deal
with the issue of Africa, especially with this potential trip in July
to the continent?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly the signing ceremony today at the
State Department is a very significant statement of America's
commitment to the people of Africa. There are nations in Africa in
which AIDS has taken the lives of some 40 percent of the children in
one country. And the President has made it as a front-and-center
priority of his administration. This is one of the initiatives that he
launched in his State of the Union address. He highlighted in the
State of the Union because of the importance he attaches to improving
the lives of people in the African continent. And today he will
reflect on that in his remarks at the State Department.

And, of course, the AGOA, or the African Growth and Opportunity Act
is legislation that is also being implemented to improve and --
improve the lives of people of Africa through more trade with the
United States and others.

Q -- examples, do you think that it's going to kind of snub
the world community, which we already have tensions with after the
Iraqi war, to say what have you done lately to help these poor
nations?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. The President hopes it will be a
call to action to these other nations to do what the United States has
done, and that is to put its money where its compassion is, and help
the people of Africa so they can deal with the plague of AIDS.

Q Well, let me tell you about it then. He alleges U.S.
military involvement in a massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners in
Afghanistan. He says that the 3,000 prisoners were forced into sealed
containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Shebarghan Prison.
When the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S. ally Afghan soldiers
fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. Then witnesses in
the film say that the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the
containers, most of the people inside were dead. U.S. Special Forces
redirected the --

MR. FLEISCHER: And your question is?

Q Well, you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm giving you some
background. So just one more thing. U.S. Special Forces redirected
the containers carrying the dead into the desert and stood by as --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think I understand your movie review.

Q And there's a mass grave of 3,000 Taliban prisoners.
Question: Does the President know about this massacre? Is he ordering
an investigation?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, I would not use a movie as a basis to
make assumptions about what is right and what is wrong. And if you
have questions about a factual matter in Afghanistan dealing with the
military, I think that's a question you should address to the
Pentagon. I'm not aware of any such thing.

Q Is the President aware of it?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know if he's aware of this movie or not; I
would doubt it.

Q To follow up on Iran, Ari, you were saying that the U.S.
policy towards Iran is unchanged and that the U.S. policy is to pursue
diplomatic means to effect change.

MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.

Q Could you please summarize again, what are the incentives
currently for Iran to make those changes? In other words, what's the
carrot? And then on the flip side, what's the stick? Is it the
pressure from external sources, or is it inside the country?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, no nation should need a carrot to stop
harboring terrorists. Nations should stop harboring terrorists because
it is the wrong thing to do if a nation wants to be seen as a serious
and legitimate player on the international stage, and a nation that is
to be taken -- treated with the respect that all nations should
have. That is why states are labeled as terrorist states.

And it's a wrong premise to say that it should be the obligation of
the United States or any other nation to offer a carrot in return for
nations behaving in a civilized way. And so that's why I said earlier
that this is a consistent message and a principled message that the
President is delivering.

Q And the disincentive to continue as they have been, as you
allege, as the United States alleges Iran is doing -- what is the
disincentive?

MR. FLEISCHER: The disincentive for Iran? I think Iran just needs
to reach the same conclusions that virtually every other nation on
Earth has reached, which is terrorists do not deserve support anywhere
-- the support of people who kill, who take innocents, who use acts of
violence against innocents as a way of life is not a policy that any
nation should take upon itself to support or harbor.

Q What is the White House policy regarding U.S. troops in the
Golan Heights to help enforce the peace there, if that ever comes
about? And will the U.S. have any input on actual issues --
Jerusalem, refugees, so forth?

MR. FLEISCHER: Our longstanding policy hereto is unchanged, and
that is the United States, in working with the two parties -- the
Israelis and the Palestinians -- have said that if the parties
request monitors -- which is different from armed forces -- if they
request monitors, that is something we'd be willing to work with the
parties on. A separate matter, though.

Q And the Golan Heights?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's for the region.

Q Just to follow up on that last question on Iran. It seems
what you're response was that there's an implied carrot out there.
That is, if a nation wants to be a part of the world community then,
obviously, they will not participate in things like harboring
terrorists. Does that mean that the U.S. would welcome Iran into the
world community we participate in if they take those steps?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's a certain obviousness about this,
in terms of there are states that are classified by the State
Department, after careful review, as terrorists states or states that
support terrorism. These nations have to ask themselves a fundamental
question: Why would they want to be in that business? Why would they
want to be among the elite minority of countries around the world that
engage in actions that lead to violence and to murder? That's the
fundamental issue that puts somebody on a terrorist-sponsoring state.
And I can only put it in the most simple terms like that, because that
is ultimately what it comes down to. These are decisions that states
make.

Q Is that the only block between normalized relations then,
between Iran and the U.S., the sponsoring of terrorism? If they did
not do that, would that open the door to better relations?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that there are a series of issues that we
are pressing on Iran. They involve not supporting -- putting an end
to its nuclear weapons program, working through the IAEA and other
multilateral channels to do so, to end its support for groups which use
violence to oppose the Middle East peace process, as well as the
interference with the Iraqi people as they rebuild their future. These
are all issues that we consider important in our discussions.

Q What's the White House response, Ari, to the letter Senator
Lieberman has sent to the Chief of Staff, asking for help in tracking
down whatever federal government involvement there might be with the
missing Texas Democratic legislature?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Is
this the letter that's dated today that was given to the Washington
Post yesterday before it was even given to the White House? That very
serious letter that -- yes. Well, I think you can tell by the manner
in which this letter was sent to the White House, it was intended less
to be a serious letter and more to be a campaign gambit by somebody who
is running for the presidency. Otherwise I think it would have been
treated as most letters are, sent to the White House first, received,
and then it would have been discussed publicly if the author had
intended it to be discussed publicly, which would have been fine. But
there -- as you know, Homeland Security is taking a look at this, and
that's where the matter lies.

Q There's a nagging doubt that the Saudis are doing everything
they can to stop terrorism. What changes have we demanded, and have
they been implemented?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the Saudis have been working well with us in
the war against terror, as we have repeatedly said. And I think in the
wake of this attack, Saudi Arabia has also recognized what you've heard
here, that they need to face the fact that they have terrorists
operating in their own country, and they are doing so. Saudi Arabia
has cooperated, and it is cooperating with the FBI team that is in
Saudi Arabia. They're working well with us. We are exchanging
information. They are pursuing leads, and all of this is appropriate.

Q President Fox says that it is time again to discuss the
immigration issue with the President, after 20 months from 9/11. What
is the President's position on the future of the immigration accord?
And second question, do you think it's fair for some members of the
U.S. Congress to trade immigration versus the opening of the oil
sector of Mexico to the U.S. investors?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's position is he remains
committed to improving border safety and advancing our bilateral
immigration agenda with Mexico, of course, consistent with the United
States' security concerns and needs. There continue to be ongoing
conversations through the State Department. And we continue to press
Congress to make advancements on issues such as 245 I, and of course,
the Mexico trucking issue, if you remember, is something that the
President worked to make progress on.

Q Do you think it's fair to trade immigration versus oil sector
of Mexico, to be open?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody making that connection, so
I'd hesitate to venture into that without having more information about
it.

Q The mad cow issue, doesn't that prove that we need some
country-of-origin labeling to prove where this food comes from? And
the second question: The President last week made comments about
genetically-modified organisms. Could you comment on that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on the genetically-modified crops, this is an
issue that the President thinks is very important to helping people in
developing communities, in the developing world, to help the African
people who suffer from famine. And this is a serious trade dispute
between the United States and the European Union about a matter that is
scientifically safe and proven. And we regret that the European Union
has taken the actions that it has. And the President will continue to
press the Europeans to help relieve starvation around the world by
allowing genetically-modified crops to be fed around the world. It's
safe and it's healthy.

The first part of your question on mad cow was an issue where --

Q Well, mad cow -- that shouldn't American consumers know
where there beef comes from, if it comes from Canada, if it comes from
Mexico, or wherever?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, these are all a series of trade actions. Of
course, with American products are shipped around the world, as well,
they are all covered by the same international regimes that govern the
export and import of products, including agricultural products. I
think what it shows is that the Department of Agriculture and other
nations around the world will move quickly when they see potential
threats to the food supply, and they acted properly in this case and
quickly in this case.

Q Ari, the Iranian groups, the opposition groups that you
mentioned earlier have now said that there are two previously unknown
Iranian nuclear production facilities -- one at Lashkar-Abad and one
at Ramideh. Does the administration have any information to confirm
that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've noted that report. But I do not have
confirmation at this time.